Cerebral Cortex, April 2016;26: 1733–1746
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhv007
Advance Access Publication Date: 30 January 2015
Original Article
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Unmasking Language Lateralization in Human Brain
Intrinsic Activity
Mark McAvoy1, Anish Mitra1, Rebecca S. Coalson1,2, Giovanni d’Avossa3, James
L. Keidel3, Steven E. Petersen1,2,4,5,6,7, and Marcus E. Raichle1,2,4,7
1
Department of Radiology, 2Department of Neurology, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA,
School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, UK, 4Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, 5Department
of Neurosurgery, 6Department of Psychology and 7Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington
University, Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA
3
Address correspondence to Mark McAvoy, Washington University School of Medicine, 4525 Scott Avenue, East Building, Room 2110, Campus Box, 8225,
Saint Louis, MO 63110, USA. Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Lateralization of function is a fundamental feature of the human brain as exemplified by the left hemisphere dominance of
language. Despite the prominence of lateralization in the lesion, split-brain and task-based fMRI literature, surprisingly little
asymmetry has been revealed in the increasingly popular functional imaging studies of spontaneous fluctuations in the fMRI
BOLD signal (so-called resting-state fMRI). Here, we show the global signal, an often discarded component of the BOLD signal in
resting-state studies, reveals a leftward asymmetry that maps onto regions preferential for semantic processing in left frontal
and temporal cortex and the right cerebellum and a rightward asymmetry that maps onto putative attention-related regions in
right frontal, temporoparietal, and parietal cortex. Hemispheric asymmetries in the global signal resulted from amplitude
modulation of the spontaneous fluctuations. To confirm these findings obtained from normal, healthy, right-handed subjects in
the resting-state, we had them perform 2 semantic processing tasks: synonym and numerical magnitude judgment and
sentence comprehension. In addition to establishing a new technique for studying lateralization through functional imaging of
the resting-state, our findings shed new light on the physiology of the global brain signal.
Key words: attention network, global signal, hemispheric asymmetry, resting-state, semantic network
Introduction
Early postmortem lesion studies established the link between
damage to left hemisphere inferior frontal and temporal cortical
structures and pronounced language deficits (Broca 1861;
Wernicke 1874). These early observations and many since from
lesion (e.g., Damasio et al. 2004), split-brain (e.g., Gazzaniga
1983), and task-state functional imaging studies (for a review,
see Price 2012) have revealed that the left hemisphere is specialized for language processing in the human brain. In contrast, results from resting-state functional imaging studies have been
less clear. While one study showed left lateralization of both inferior frontal and temporal areas (Liu et al. 2009), others have
failed to show left lateralization of temporal cortex (Smith et al.
2009), have instead showed right lateralization of inferior frontal
areas (Tomasi and Volkow 2012), or have failed to show clear lateralization in either area (Lee et al. 2012; Hacker et al. 2013; Muller
and Meyer 2014; Tie et al. 2014; Zhu et al. 2014). Thus, support for
leftward lateralization of intrinsic activity in putative language
processing areas has been conflicting.
The right hemisphere has been postulated to be specialized
for attentional processing. Support comes from patients suffering from spatial neglect after right hemisphere damage (e.g.,
Heilman and Abell 1980), the performance of spatial tasks by
split-brain individuals (e.g., LeDoux et al. 1977), and task-state
functional imaging studies of visuospatial attention (e.g., Cai
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]
1733
1734
| Cerebral Cortex, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
et al. 2013). Regions commonly considered preferential for attentional processing include the frontal eye fields (FEFs) and intraparietal sulcus (IPS) of the dorsal attention system and the
temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and ventral frontal/insular regions of the ventral attention system (for reviews, see Corbetta
and Shulman 2011; Vossel et al. 2014). While resting-state imaging studies have found right ventral parietal regions to have
greater functional connectivity to the ventral attention system
than their left hemisphere homologs, the lateralization of parietal and frontal regions of the dorsal attention system has
been much less clear (Fox et al. 2006; Hutchison et al. 2012;
Kucyi et al. 2012; Lee et al. 2012; Daselaar et al. 2013; Hacker
et al. 2013; Markett et al. 2014).
Previous work on the brain’s lateralized organization in the
resting-state has focused on the residual lateralization present
after removal of the global signal (Liu et al. 2009; Gee et al. 2011;
Wang et al. 2013). Although the global signal was originally regarded as a nuisance variable reflecting physiologic artifacts
(Hampson et al. 2002; Greicius et al. 2003; Fox et al. 2005), its removal has been observed to change the topography among and
relationship between systems (Weissenbacher et al. 2009) suggesting it includes a signal of neural origin (Scholvinck et al.
2010). We explored the hemispheric asymmetries in the resting-state global signal. Using a simple subtraction methodology
that removed contributions from cardiac (Shmueli et al. 2007),
respiration (Wise et al. 2004), and head movement signals
(Power et al. 2012; Zeng et al. 2014) common to both hemispheres,
we mapped the remaining neural signal over the entire brain to
identify leftward and rightward asymmetric regions. We show
hemispheric asymmetries of the global signal account for a substantial amount of variance and measure effect sizes. This mapping is found to be robust across models and is validated with a
much larger data set. Finally, the functional relevance of these
resting-state asymmetries was examined to identify regions preferential for semantic processing.
Materials and Methods
Paradigm and Subjects
Two fMRI data sets were analyzed. The first was a cohort of
twenty healthy, right-handed subjects (8 male, average age
28.7) that participated in a resting and task-state experiment.
The second was a previously published resting-state cohort of
120 healthy, young, right-handed subjects (60 male, average age
24.7) culled from 9 different studies (see Power et al. 2013 for details). This latter group was used to validate the resting-state effects found in the much smaller cohort. The Washington
University Institutional Review Board approved the experimental
protocols, and subjects gave written consent prior to participation.
For the smaller cohort, the resting and task-state experiment
was completed in a single session and included 3 run types in the
following order: 1) wakeful rest, 2) synonym and numerical magnitude judgment and 3) sentence comprehension. The experiment was performed in 3 series, so 3 runs of each type were
collected. For the first run type, wakeful rest, subjects maintained
fixation on a foveal crosshair for the duration of the 6-min run.
Synonym and numerical magnitude judgment tasks are used
clinically to test verbal comprehension in semantic dementia
and other aphasic groups (Lambon Ralph et al. 2009). For this second run type, we utilized a blocked design. For synonym judgment blocks, subjects indicated whether the second or third
word was closer in meaning to the first. Likewise for numerical
magnitude judgment blocks, subjects indicated whether the
second or third number was closer in value to the first. Responses
were made with a left-hand button press on an MR compatible
button box. For both block types, blocks lasted 22.5 s and began
with a foveal green crosshair for 2.5 s followed by 4 trials each
with a duration of 5 s. The 3 individual stimuli within a trial
were presented serially and foveally for 700 ms separated by a
250-ms blank interval. A 2.4-s response interval followed the
third item. Blocks were randomized and separated by a 15-s
fixation interval. Each 6.75-min run began and ended with a
15-s fixation interval and included 10 blocks, for a total of 30
blocks over the 3 runs. The first 8 subjects performed one version
of this task, which included 15 synonym judgment blocks and 15
numerical magnitude judgment blocks. The remaining 12 subjects performed a second version with 20 synonym judgment
blocks and 10 numerical magnitude judgment blocks. For this second version, the synonym judgment task included 10 blocks of
abstract words (Coughlan and Warrington 1978; Warrington et al.
1998; Noppeney and Price 2004; Jefferies et al. 2009) and 10 blocks
of sensory words (Noppeney and Price 2004).
For the third run type, sentence comprehension, subjects
fixated on a foveal crosshair while listening to sentences through
MR compatible headphones. Sentences were either plausible
(“A broken wing meant the bird couldn’t fly”), implausible
(“A broken wing meant the bird couldn’t write”), or spectrally
rotated versions of implausible sentences. Spectrally rotated sentences were created by multiplying each implausible sentence by
a 4500-Hz sine wave then low-pass filtering with a cutoff frequency of 4000 Hz (Scott et al. 2000). Spectral rotation retains
some of the phonetics of normal speech, but intelligibility is
very difficult (Blesser 1972). All sentences were normalized to
have the same peak volume. Sentence presentation followed an
event-related design, with each sentence lasting approximately
3 s followed by a randomly jittered interval to yield stimulus
onset asynchronies of 5, 7.5 and 10 s. Each 5-min run included
13 sentences of each of the 3 types that were randomly intermixed. Thus, the entire experiment included 39 plausible, 39 implausible, and 39 rotated sentences. Passive sentence listening
accesses speech comprehension, and the comparison of sentences with plausible and implausible meanings measures
semantic processing while controlling for phonological, lexical,
and syntactic processing along with working memory (Price
2010). The comparison of the sentences with plausible and
implausible meanings to spectrally rotated sentences contrasts
processing related to speech comprehension to more general
auditory processing while controlling for the acoustic complexity
and intonation structure of normal speech (Blesser 1972; Scott
et al. 2000).
Stimulus Presentation
All stimuli were presented using E-Prime on a Dell laptop. Audio
levels were set with a short trial run at the beginning of the experiment. Subjects listened to plausible, implausible, and spectrally rotated sentences and indicated with a button press
whether the volume should be increased or decreased. The sentences presented during the trial run were different from the
ones presented during the sentence comprehension task. For visual presentation a mirror was placed on the top of the head coil
allowing visualization of stimuli on a projection screen via an
LED projector at the back of the scanner.
Data Acquisition
Images were acquired with a Siemens 3 T Trio system (Erlangen)
with a Siemens 12-channel Matrix head coil. A single high-
Hemispheric Asymmetry Mapping
resolution structural run was acquired using a sagittal magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo (MP-RAGE) sequence (slice
echo time = 3.08 ms, TR = 2.4 s, inversion time = 1 s, flip angle = 8o,
176 slices, 1-mm isotropic voxels). Functional runs were acquired
parallel to the anterior–posterior commissure using an asymmetric spin-echo echo-plana pulse sequence (TR = 2.5 s, T2 × evolution
time = 27 ms, flip angle = 90o). Thirty-two contiguous interleaved
4-mm axial slices, with a 4 × 4 mm in-plane resolution, allowed
for total brain coverage.
Image Preprocessing
Frame-by-frame movement correction data from the rotation
and translation in the x, y, and z planes were computed for
each participant for each run. Three runs had an overall movement of ≥1.5-mm RMS and were excluded from further analysis.
Image preprocessing included the following steps: 1) compensation for slice-dependent time shifts, 2) elimination of odd/even
slice intensity differences due to interleaved acquisition, 3)
realignment of all data acquired in each subject within and across
runs to compensate for rigid body motion, and 4) normalization
to a whole brain mode value of 1000 (Ojemann et al. 1997). The
functional data were transformed into atlas space (Talairach
and Tournoux 1988) by computing a sequence of affine transformations (first frame of BOLD run to T2-weighted fast spin-echo to
MP-RAGE to atlas representative target), which were combined by
matrix multiplication, resampling to a 2-mm isotropic grid. For
cross-modal (i.e., functional to structural) image registration, a
locally developed algorithm was used (Rowland et al. 2005).
Wakeful Rest: Modeling Hemispheric Asymmetries
of the Global BOLD Signal
| 1735
low-pass filter lpfj (t) was implemented with a Fourier basis set
that consisted of sine and cosine pairs modeling full cycles from
the cutoff of 0.08 Hz (Biswal et al. 1995; Lowe et al. 1998) to the
Nyquist frequency (e.g., McAvoy et al. 2008). Additional terms included the constant c0 and linear trend c1t to remove slow drifts
in the time series. Solving the partial correlation model of Equation 1 via ordinary least squares yielded estimates of the left and
right hemisphere global signal weights, Lglobalj and Rglobalj. Importantly, each voxel from each hemisphere was estimated independently in Equation 1. Homotopic voxels were not paired, rather
components Lglobaljlglobalj (t) and Rglobaljrglobalj (t) extracted the left
and right hemisphere global signal contributions to the restingstate time series BOLDj (t) of each voxel.
The estimated weights Lglobal and Rglobal were normalized by
the constant term averaged over runs, then spatially smoothed
with a 4-mm full width at half maximum (FWHM) 3D gaussian
kernel to blur individual differences in brain anatomy. Statistical
significance was assessed with a group-level two-tailed, paired
Student’s T-test on the difference between left and right hemisphere weights. The statistical map was z-transformed and corrected for multiple comparisons (|z| ≥ 3.0, minimum 21 faceconnected voxels, P < 0.05 corrected) with a Monte Carlo-based
method (Forman et al. 1995; McAvoy et al. 2001).
The differential model
The hemispheric model estimates weights for each hemisphere
but does not directly estimate the asymmetric and symmetric
weightings between hemispheres. To extract these weights, subject-specific GLMs were fit to the BOLD time series at each voxel:
BOLDj ðtÞ ¼ ASYMglobalj ½lglobalj ðtÞ rglobalj ðtÞ þ SYMglobalj ½lglobalj ðtÞ
To examine lateralized differences of the resting-state global signal, we considered 2 models: a hemispheric model in which
weights were estimated for each hemisphere and a differential
model that estimated asymmetric and symmetric weights.
The hemispheric model
The hemispheric model is motivated by the structure of the brain
with its 2 hemispheres that are approximately mirror images
(Keller et al. 2009). Subject-specific general linear models (GLMs)
(Friston et al. 1995) were fit to the BOLD time series at each voxel:
BOLDj ðtÞ ¼ Lglobalj lglobalj ðtÞ þ Rglobalj rglobalj ðtÞ þ LWMj lWMj ðtÞ
þ RWMj rWMj ðtÞ þ LCSFj lCSFj ðtÞ þ RCSFj rCSFj ðtÞ
McAvoy et al.
ð1Þ
þ MOTIONj motionj ðtÞ þ LPFj lpf j ðtÞ þ c0j þ c1j t
where lglobalj (t) and rglobalj (t) are the time series of the left and right
hemispheres for the jth run, which were formed by removing the
linear trend and intercept at the voxel level then averaging over all
voxels in the left and right hemispheres, respectively. Similarly,
lWMj (t), rWMj (t) and lCSFj (t), rCSFj (t) are the time series of white matter
and ventricular signals, respectively. These regressors were
formed from each individual’s eroded white matter and ventricular masks (e.g., Power et al. 2014) by removing the linear trend and
intercept at each voxel then averaging over the left and right hemisphere voxels, respectively. Head movement signals were accounted for by motionj (t) which represents 24 time series
formed from measured head shifts and angular displacements
in 3 dimensions (i.e., X, Y, Z, pitch, yaw, and roll) along with their
squares, derivatives, and squared derivatives (Friston et al. 1996;
Satterthwaite et al. 2013; Yan et al. 2013; Power et al. 2014). The
þrglobalj ðtÞ þ ASYMWMj ½lWMj ðtÞ rWMj ðtÞ þ SYMWMj ½lWMj ðtÞ
þ rWMj ðtÞ þ ASYMCSFj ½lCSFj ðtÞ rCSFj ðtÞ þ SYMCSFj ½lCSFj ðtÞ
þ rCSFj ðtÞ þ MOTIONj motionj ðtÞ þ LPFj lpf j ðtÞ þ c0j þ c1j t
ð2Þ
where lj (t) and rj (t) are the time series of the left and right hemispheres for the jth run, which were formed by removing the linear trend and intercept at the voxel level then averaging over all
left or right hemisphere voxels for the global signal or the respective eroded masks for the white matter and ventricular signals. The regressor modeling the asymmetric signal [lj (t) − rj (t)]
and the regressor modeling the symmetric signal [lj (t) + rj (t)]
were normalized to their RMS values (i.e., standard deviation).
This effectively implements a z-score normalization, ensuring
equivalent loadings in the model. Without this normalization,
the loadings on the asymmetric weights would be biased to be
disproportionally larger than that on the symmetric weights.
This is best understood by examining Figure 1, in that the
sum of the left and right hemisphere time series (blue and
red traces, respectively) will be a regressor with very large fluctuations compared with the difference. Additional terms included head motion motionj (t), the low pass filter lpfj (t),
constant c0 and linear trend c1t. See “hemispheric model”
above for details. Solving the partial correlation model of Equation 2 via ordinary least squares parsed the global signal into
asymmetric ASYMglobalj and symmetric SYMglobalj weights.
Once again homotopic voxels were not paired, rather the component ASYMglobalj [lglobalj (t) − rglobalj (t)] extracted the lateralized
contribution and ASYMglobalj [lglobalj (t) + rglobalj (t)] extracted the
common contribution across hemispheres of the global signal
to the resting-state time series BOLDj (t) of each voxel.
1736
| Cerebral Cortex, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
rotated sentence. Regressors included 3 sets of delta functions,
one for each sentence type, each modeling the BOLD response
over 10 timepoints. Additional regressors included a constant
term and linear trend for each run. The estimated responses
were normalized by the value of the constant term averaged
over runs, then spatially smoothed with a 4-mm FWHM 3D
gaussian kernel. Statistical significance was assessed with a
group-level repeated-measures ANOVA with subjects as the random factor and 2 fixed factors: sentence type ( plausible, implausible, and rotated) and time (10 timepoints). The resulting
statistical maps, which included the sentence type by time interaction (F9,171), were sphericity-corrected (Algina 1997), z-transformed, and corrected for multiple comparisons (|z| ≥ 3.0,
minimum 45 face-connected voxels, P < 0.05 corrected) with a
Monte Carlo-based method (Forman et al. 1995; McAvoy et al.
2001).
Figure 1. Left and right hemisphere time series of a single subject during wakeful
rest. Shown is an entire 6-min fixation run. Time series are averaged over all
voxels in the respective hemisphere. These are examples of the time series
lglobal(t) and rglobal(t) for the left and right hemisphere, respectively, used to
estimate the global signal weights in Equations 1 and 2 (see Materials and
Methods). The blue arrow points to an epoch where the spontaneous
fluctuations of the left hemisphere exceed the right. The red arrow points to an
epoch where the spontaneous fluctuations of the right hemisphere exceed the
left. These amplitude fluctuations occur without a change in phase between
hemispheres.
The estimated weight ASYMglobal was normalized by the
constant term averaged over runs, then spatially smoothed
with a 4-mm FWHM 3D gaussian kernel to blur individual differences in brain anatomy. Statistical significance was assessed
with a group-level two-tailed, one-sample Student’s T-test.
The statistical map was z-transformed and corrected for
multiple comparisons (|z| ≥ 3.0, minimum 21 face-connected voxels, P < 0.05 corrected) with a Monte Carlo-based method (Forman
et al. 1995; McAvoy et al. 2001).
Analysis: Synonym and Numerical Magnitude Judgment
Subject-specific GLMs estimated the evoked BOLD response timelocked to the green crosshair cueing the start of a trial block. The
GLM regressors included 2 sets of delta functions, one for synonym judgment blocks and the other for the numerical magnitude
blocks, each modeling the BOLD response over 15 timepoints.
Additional regressors included a constant term and linear trend
for each run. The estimated responses were normalized by the
value of the constant term averaged over runs, then spatially
smoothed with a 4-mm FWHM 3D gaussian kernel. Statistical significance was assessed with a group-level repeated-measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) with subjects as the random factor
and 2 fixed factors (e.g., Keppel 1991): block type (synonym and
numerical magnitude) and time (15 timepoints). The resulting
statistical maps, which included the task by time interaction
(F14,266), were sphericity-corrected (Algina 1997), z-transformed
and corrected for multiple comparisons (|z| ≥ 3.0, minimum 45
face-connected voxels, P < 0.05 corrected) with a Monte Carlobased method (Forman et al. 1995; McAvoy et al. 2001).
Analysis: Sentence Comprehension
Subject-specific GLMs estimated the evoked BOLD response timelocked to the start of each plausible, implausible, and spectrally
Results
Hemispheric Asymmetries of the Resting-State Global
Signal
Plotted in Figure 1 are examples of the hemispheric time series
lglobalj (t) and rglobal(t) from a single run of a single subject. Although the 2 time series are in phase, the amplitude of the spontaneous fluctuations between the 2 hemispheres waxes and
wanes such that for some epochs the left hemisphere dominates,
while other epochs are dominated by the right hemisphere. Our
null hypothesis is that these amplitude modulations are within
the noise of the BOLD signal. This null hypothesis was tested voxelwise across the entire brain with a group-level paired Student’s
T-test (see Materials and Methods) demonstrating that statistically significant differences exist in many cortical areas. In Figure 2, regions shown in hot colors displayed a significant
leftward asymmetry characterized by a left global weight (Lglobal,
Eq. 1) that was greater than the right (Rglobal ). Regions shown in
cool colors displayed a significant rightward asymmetry characterized by a right global weight that was greater than the left.
MNI152 coordinates are reported in Table 1. Areas in the left
hemisphere with a leftward asymmetry included a broad swath
of regions along the precentral gyrus extending into the precentral sulcus (dPreC, larynx, and tongue cortex, c.f. Brown et al.
2008), extending anteriorly onto the inferior frontal gyrus (dpOp
and vpOp), extending into the inferior frontal sulcus and onto
the middle frontal gyrus (MFG), and dorsally into the superior
frontal sulcus and onto the superior frontal gyrus (SFG). In temporal cortex, regions along the posterior superior temporal sulcus
( pSTS) are highlighted with additional regions along the middle
temporal gyrus (MTG), extending dorsally onto the superior temporal gyrus and ventrally into inferotemporal cortex (VWFA, c.f.
Petersen et al. 1990; Cohen and Dahaene 2004). In posterior
parietal cortex, shown are regions along the angular gyrus (AG)
extending into the inferior parietal lobe (IPL). On the mesial
surface regions were found in dorsal medial prefrontal cortex,
precuneus and along the collateral sulcus, and the caudate subcortically (data not shown). The cerebellum was the only right
hemisphere area to display a leftward asymmetry with regions
in Crus I and II (Figure 4A, third column and Table 1, c.f. Petersen
et al. 1989; Wang et al. 2013).
With the exception of the cerebellum, significant areas in the
right hemisphere displayed a rightward asymmetry including regions along the supramarginal gyrus (vSMG), extending posteriorly onto the AG, dorsally into the IPS and ventrally into TPJ. These
latter 2 posterior parietal regions (IPS and TPJ) along with the FEFs
Hemispheric Asymmetry Mapping
McAvoy et al.
| 1737
Figure 2. Hemispheric asymmetries of the resting-state global signal. Group-level statistical map of the difference between left and right global weights (Lglobal and Rglobal,
Eq. 1) during wakeful rest. Regions shown in hot colors display a significant leftward asymmetry, whereas regions shown in cool colors display a significant rightward
asymmetry. Shown on the inflated lateral cortical surface are gaussianized T statistics from a Student’s paired T-test corrected for multiple comparisons (P < 0.05).
Peak coordinates and abbreviations are listed in Table 1. In the left hemisphere, many putative language processing areas are identified including regions along the
inferior frontal gyrus (dpOp) and superior temporal sulcus ( pSTS). In the right hemisphere, many putative attention processing areas are identified including regions
in frontal cortex (FEF), along the IPS and the TPJ.
Table 1 Coordinates of regions with significant differences in left and right global components as identified in Figures 2 and 4A
Regiona
Left MFG
Left MTG
Left SFG
Left dorsal pars opercularis
Left precentral cortex
Left dorsal precentral cortex
Left IPL
Left ventral pars opercularis
Left pSTS
Left AG
Left precentral cortex
Left inferotemporal cortex
Right lateral inferior cerebellum, Crus I
Right posterior cerebellum, Crus II
Right posterior MTG
Right IPS
Right dorsal precentral cortex
Right insula
Right TPJ
Right MFG
Right FEF
Right ventral supramarginal gyrus
Right ventral precentral cortex
Abbreviation
LMFG
LMTG
LSFG
LdpOp
Larynx
LdPreC
LIPL
LvpOp
LpSTS
LAG
Tongue
VWFA
RCBI
RCBII
RpMTG
RIPS
RdPreC
RIns
RTPJ
RMFG
RFEF
RvSMG
RvPreC
Peakb
Volume
ASYMglobal
SYMglobal
Differential ratio
x
y
z
mm3
R 2 ± semc
R 2 ± semc
ASYMglobal/SYMglobal
−46
−64
−25
−49
−46
−44
−36
−42
−54
−36
−49
−46
29
17
49
44
42
41
60
42
26
61
62
9
−38
37
19
5
3
−71
36
−42
−71
9
−55
−76
−76
−56
−45
6
5
−40
45
0
−42
12
53
1
49
25
36
47
42
11
1
44
27
−13
−35
−26
12
45
49
2
28
21
64
39
−1
416
464
632
408
360
368
400
432
656
360
344
336
368
200
328
440
432
352
448
368
496
336
328
0.065 ± 0.007
0.063 ± 0.008
0.074 ± 0.009
0.072 ± 0.009
0.060 ± 0.007
0.063 ± 0.009
0.068 ± 0.008
0.053 ± 0.006
0.054 ± 0.007
0.059 ± 0.006
0.052 ± 0.005
0.038 ± 0.005
0.037 ± 0.005
0.044 ± 0.005
0.040 ± 0.004
0.055 ± 0.007
0.046 ± 0.004
0.051 ± 0.006
0.062 ± 0.005
0.065 ± 0.008
0.054 ± 0.007
0.086 ± 0.009
0.062 ± 0.007
0.130 ± 0.019
0.169 ± 0.023
0.094 ± 0.016
0.120 ± 0.018
0.118 ± 0.018
0.160 ± 0.020
0.122 ± 0.014
0.077 ± 0.013
0.145 ± 0.021
0.129 ± 0.015
0.103 ± 0.015
0.189 ± 0.020
0.108 ± 0.011
0.094 ± 0.011
0.151 ± 0.016
0.116 ± 0.012
0.161 ± 0.017
0.126 ± 0.017
0.138 ± 0.015
0.122 ± 0.020
0.148 ± 0.021
0.123 ± 0.013
0.201 ± 0.023
0.50
0.37
0.79
0.60
0.51
0.39
0.56
0.69
0.37
0.46
0.50
0.20
0.34
0.46
0.27
0.47
0.29
0.41
0.45
0.53
0.37
0.70
0.31
a
All regions were hand drawn on the peaks of the statistical image shown in Figures 2 and 4A.
b
Peak coordinates are given in millimeters according to the MNI152 atlas.
c
R 2 is the amount of variance accounted for by the respective component from the differential model averaged across the twenty subjects (see Eq. 2, Materials and
Methods).
have been implicated in attentional processing (for reviews, see
Corbetta and Shulman 2011; Vossel et al. 2014). Regions are also
found in posterior temporal (pMTG), inferotemporal and parietooccipital cortex. In the anterior brain, a broad swath of regions is
found along the MFG extending into the superior frontal sulcus.
Additional regions are found dorsally along the precentral sulcus
(dPreC) extending onto the central gyrus and ventrally (vPreC)
extending into the insula (Ins). These latter regions in the middle
and posterior (data not shown) insula have been identified to emotional processing (Duerden et al. 2013). On the mesial surface, regions are found along the SFG, precuneus, parieto-occipital sulcus,
and the fusiform gyrus extending into the collateral sulcus, as well
as subcortically in dorsomedial and posterior thalamic nuclei
(data not shown).
1738
| Cerebral Cortex, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Omitting frames of the BOLD time series with a framewise
displacement (Power et al. 2012) of >0.2 mm, the current recommendation for normal adult subjects (Power et al. 2014) yielded a
map similar to that shown in Figure 2 (data not shown). The
group-level paired Student’s T-test of the difference between
LWM and RWM yielded regions largely confined to the white matter
(data not shown). Likewise, the group-level paired Student’s Ttest of the difference between LCSF and RCSF yielded regions largely confined to the ventricles (data not shown).
Variance Explained and Effect Sizes of Hemispheric
Asymmetries
Although Figure 2 is a statistically significant map corrected for
multiple comparisons, it is possible that these global signal asymmetries account for little variance in the spontaneous fluctuations.
Table 1 reports the R 2 values of the asymmetric (ASYMglobal ) and
symmetric (SYMglobal ) weights from the differential model (Eq. 2)
for each region averaged across the twenty subjects. Altogether
the combined R 2 of the asymmetric and symmetric weights averaged across the 23 regions was 0.18 ± 0.028, thus explaining 18%
of the variance in the BOLD time series, in line with other estimates
of the variance accounted for by the global signal (Carbonell et al.
2011). We also wished to ascertain how much variance the asymmetric weight explained relative to the symmetric. This differential
ratio is found in the last column of Table 1 and is the variance explained by the asymmetric weight divided by the variance explained by the symmetric weight ðR2ASYMglobal =R2SYMglobal Þ: Values
ranged from 0.20 to 0.79 (mean = 0.46).
Having established that global signal hemispheric asymmetries explain a significant amount of variance in the brain’s
spontaneous fluctuations, we next examined effect sizes.
Shown in the top panel of Figure 3 are the subject averaged Lglobaland Rglobal weights extracted from the hemispheric model of
Equation 1. Shown in the bottom panel are the subject averaged
ASYMglobal and SYMglobal weights extracted from the differential
model of Equation 2. Displayed units are percent BOLD signal
computed for each subject by normalizing to the value of the constant term averaged over runs, multiplying by 100 then taking the
mean across subjects. Coordinates of plotted regions are provided in Table 1. Considering first just the top panel, a leftward
asymmetric region is defined as having a larger positive Lglobal
weight and a smaller negative Rglobal weight (e.g., LMFG), whereas
a rightward asymmetric region is defined as having a larger positive Rglobal weight and a smaller negative Lglobal weight (e.g.,
RvPreC). As a basis for comparison, 2 contralateral homologs
that lacked a significant differential relation between left and
right hemisphere spontaneous fluctuations were defined as 10mm-diameter spheres at Talairach coordinates (−10, −90, and
0) and (10, −90, and 0) (MNI coordinates: [−11, −91, and 3], [10,
−91, and 2]), located in left and right primary visual cortex (LV1
and RV1). These 2 regions had a very different pattern. LV1 had
positive Lglobal and Rglobal weights of equal amplitude, whereas
RV1 had a larger positive Rglobal weight and a smaller positive
Lglobal weight. The group averaged R 2 values of LV1 and RV1
over Lglobal and Rglobal weights were 0.20 ± 0.013 and 0.28 ± 0.026,
respectively, whereas the mean over the 23 regions with significant hemispheric asymmetries was 0.18 ± 0.028. Thus, the lack
of an asymmetrical relationship did not result from poor fit of
the model expressed in Equation 1. Rather these non-asymmetrical and statistically nonsignificant patterns in bilateral visual
cortex may be explained by the observation that in homotopic
Figure 3. Resting-state global signal asymmetries show a complementary relationship between hemispheres. Group averaged left and right global weights from the
hemispheric model (Eq. 1, Materials and Methods) and asymmetric and symmetric weights from the differential model (Eq. 2, Materials and Methods). Coordinates
are provided in Table 1. Top panel. Regions with a leftward asymmetry had a larger positive Lglobal weight and a smaller negative Rglobal weight, whereas regions with
a rightward asymmetry had a larger positive Rglobal weight and a smaller negative Lglobal weight. The right cerebellum (RCBI and RCBII) shows a leftward asymmetry in
contrast to the other right hemisphere regions. Left and right visual cortex (LV1 and RV1) were defined as 10-mm-diameter spheres centered at Talairach coordinates (−10,
−90, and 0) and (10, −90, and 0) (MNI coordinates: [−11, −91, and 3] and [10, −91, and 2]), respectively. They provide a basis for comparison as visual cortex did not show
hemispheric asymmetries (see Fig. 4A,B, axial slice Z = 0). While regions that displayed hemispheric asymmetries had a sign change between Lglobal and Rglobal
components, both components were positive for LV1 and RV1. Bottom panel. Leftward asymmetric regions had a positive ASYM global weight, and rightward
asymmetric regions had a negative ASYMglobal weight. Percent BOLD signal was computed for each subject by normalizing to the value of the constant term averaged
over runs, then multiplying by 100. Displayed are the mean percentages across subjects.
Hemispheric Asymmetry Mapping
McAvoy et al.
| 1739
regions, intrahemispheric signals are more correlated than interhemispheric signals (Gee et al. 2011). The pattern between left
and right global weights in the remaining regions supports the
notion of a complementary relationship between hemispheres
(Sperry 1982).
Considering now the bottom panel of Figure 3, a leftward
asymmetric region (e.g., LMFG) had a positive asymmetric weight
(ASYMglobal ), whereas a rightward asymmetric region (e.g.,
RvPreC) has a negative asymmetric weight. Normalization of
the differential model regressors resulted in much larger weights
than those extracted from the hemispheric model shown in the
top panel (see Materials and Methods), but our interest is the
ratio of asymmetric to symmetric weightings. Regions with a leftward asymmetry had ratios that ranged from 0.19 to 0.66, whereas rightward asymmetric regions had ratios that ranged from
−0.27 to −0.56. The ratios for LV1 and RV1 were −0.008 and
−0.085. In summary, we found that effect sizes were consistent
with measures of explained variance, in that regions with significant global signal hemispheric asymmetries had an asymmetric
weighting that was on average 40% (mean of the 23 regions) that
of the symmetric weighting, and this asymmetric weighting
accounted for 46% of the variance relative to the symmetric
weighting.
Robustness of Hemispheric Asymmetries across Models
and Data Sets
The differential model assessed hemispheric asymmetries with
a single weight (ASYMglobal, Eq. 2). The one-sample Student’s
T-test of this weight produced a very similar map to that of the
paired Student’s T-test between Lglobal and Rglobal weights
extracted from the hemispheric model (Eq. 1) as seen by comparing Figure 4B with A. We validated this mapping with a second,
larger resting-state data set of 120 subjects (see Materials and
Methods). Figure 4E shows the difference between Lglobal and
Rglobal weights from a paired Student’s T-test on this cohort. Comparing this map to the smaller cohort of Figure 4A, we find good
anatomical correspondence between peak areas.
Leftward Asymmetric Regions in Left Frontal and
Temporal Cortex and the Right Cerebellum are
Preferential for Semantic Processing
Although hemispheric asymmetries of the global spontaneous
fluctuations uncovered many regions long regarded as important
for language processing including regions along the inferior
frontal gyrus (Bookheimer 2002), superior temporal sulcus
(Wise et al. 2001), and the right cerebellum (Petersen et al. 1989;
Fiez et al. 1992), we sought to confirm the anatomical correspondence of the task-state. Shown in Figure 4A,B are hemispheric
asymmetries in the resting-state global signal for the hemispheric and differential models, respectively. Shown in Figure 4C is the
interaction of block type by time highlighting regions whose
BOLD responses were modulated over time between the synonym judgment and numerical magnitude task. This map is
signed with mean of the response evoked for synonym judgments minus the mean of the response evoked for numerical
magnitude judgments. Thus, regions with larger BOLD responses
to synonym blocks are shown in hot colors, and regions with larger responses to number blocks are shown in cool colors. Shown
in Figure 4D is the interaction of sentence type by time highlighting regions whose BOLD responses were modulated over time by
the plausible, implausible, and spectrally rotated sentences. In
Figure 4. Group-level statistical maps highlighting the robustness of resting-state
global signal hemispheric asymmetries across models (A,B), anatomical
correspondence with language tasks (C,D) and validation with a second, larger
data set (E). (A) Hemispheric asymmetries of the resting-state global signal as
estimated by the hemispheric model (Eq. 1, Materials and Methods). Shown is a
paired Student’s T-test on the difference between Lglobal and Rglobal weights. The
3 axial slices are taken from the same map shown in Figure 2. (B) Hemispheric
asymmetries of the resting-state global signal as estimated by the differential
model (Eq. 2, Materials and Methods). Shown is a one-sample Student’s T-test
on the asymmetric weight. (C) Synonym and numerical magnitude judgment
task. Shown is the interaction of block type by time highlighting regions whose
BOLD responses differentiated between the synonym and number blocks. This
map is signed with the mean difference of the 2 blocks (synonyms—numbers).
(D) Sentence comprehension task. Shown is the interaction of sentence type by
time highlighting regions whose BOLD responses differentiated between
plausible, implausible, and spectrally rotated sentences. (E) 120 subject
validation data set. Hemispheric asymmetries of the resting-state global signal
as estimated by the hemispheric model. Shown is a paired Student’s T-test on
the difference between Lglobal and Rglobal weights. Displayed values in (A,B) and
(E) are gaussianized T statistics; (C,D) are gaussianzed F statistics. All maps have
been corrected for multiple comparisons (P < 0.05). Three regions are identified
with blue arrows: left dorsal pars opercularis in the first column, LpSTS in the
second column, and the RCBI in the third column. See Table 1 for coordinates.
1740
| Cerebral Cortex, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
the first column, the left dorsal pars opercularis (LdpOp), in the
second column the left posterior superior temporal sulcus
(LpSTS), and in the third column the right lateral inferior cerebellum (RCBI) are identified. We may conclude that regions identified from hemispheric asymmetries in the resting-state global
signal have good anatomical correspondence to regions preferential for sematic processing.
Having established initial face validity, we further examined
these regions across both tasks with direct post hoc statistical
comparisons. It is quite possible that voxelwise differences between synonym and numerical magnitude shown in Figure 4C
are driven purely by reaction time and accuracy differences. It
is also possible that none of the regions discriminate between
the abstract and sensory word blocks. Reaction times and accuracy were recorded for 11 of the 12 subjects that performed the second version of this task that included the 3 different block types
(abstract, sensory, and number). A repeated-measures ANOVA
with subjects as the random factor and reaction time as the
fixed factor found no significant difference between the 3 types
of blocks (F2,20 = 0.86, P = 0.44). Mean reaction times for the abstract, sensory, and number blocks were 1043 ± 91, 1001 ± 87,
and 992 ± 95 ms, respectively. However, the repeated-measures
ANOVA performed on accuracy was significant (F2,20 = 4.88, P =
0.02). Mean accuracies for the abstract, sensory, and number
blocks were 90.05 ± 5.50%, 94.43 ± 4.16%, and 94.09 ± 4.07%, respectively. Post hoc tests confirmed the significance of the
lower accuracy for synonym judgments on abstract words
(abstract vs. sensory: F1,10 = 5.43, P = 0.04; abstract vs. number:
F1,10 = 10.19, P = 0.0096).
The evoked BOLD responses of the 12 subjects that performed
the second version of the synonym and numerical magnitude
judgment task with 3 different block types were analyzed with
2 post hoc repeated-measures ANOVAs. The random factor was
subjects with fixed factors of block type and time (15 timepoints).
In the first, block type was analyzed at 3 levels (abstract, sensory,
and number) to determine if the evoked response distinguished
between the 3 block types. If the interaction of block type by
time was significant, then a second ANOVA with block type at
2 levels (abstract and sensory) was performed to test whether
the region distinguished between abstract and sensory words.
Results from the former ANOVA with block type at 3 levels are
shown in the second column of Table 2 and those from the latter
with block type at 2 levels are shown in the third column. A region
was given a stimulus preference as indicated in the fourth column, if its BOLD response differentiated between abstract,
sensory, and number blocks. If the response was greater for numbers, then this indicated a number preference. Likewise, if the response was greater for either abstract or sensory words, then this
indicated a word preference. If the region’s response differentiated between abstract and sensory blocks, then this latter distinction was refined to a stimulus preference for either abstract
or sensory blocks depending on which response was larger. As indicated in Table 2, the right cerebellum (RCBI and RCBII) was the
only right hemisphere area with a word preference. All left hemisphere regions except for those in parietal cortex (LAG) had a
word preference with the superior frontal gyrus (LSFG), dorsal
pars opercularis (LdpOp), pSTS, and the RCBI having a preference
for abstract words, though this may reflect the lower accuracy of
Table 2 Statistics of regions identified in Table 1 for the two language tasks
Region
Synonym and numerical magnitude judgment
Sentence comprehension
Interaction of block type by time
Interaction of sentence type by time
Abstract vs.
sensory vs. number
P-value
LMFG
LMTG
LSFG
LdpOp
Larynx
LdPreC
LIPL
LvpOp
LpSTS
LAG
Tongue
VWFA
RCBI
RCBII
RpMTG
RIPS
RdPreC
RIns
RTPJ
RMFG
RFEF
RvSMG
RvPreC
0.565
0.333
0.0206
1.63e − 15
0.429
0.0792
0.297
0.000804
1.89e − 9
0.000185
0.0338
0.597
3.43e − 6
4.40e − 5
0.166
3.23e − 16
0.000162
0.792
0.00187
0.000209
0.000203
1.28e − 8
0.795
Abstract vs.
sensoryb
P-value
Stimulus
preferencea
0.00425
0.0163
Abstract
Abstract
0.679
0.0119
0.374
0.507
Words
Abstract
Numbers
Words
0.0199
0.654
Abstract
Words
0.172
0.00560
Numbers
Numbers
0.913
0.0764
0.283
0.474
Numbers
Numbers
Numbers
Numbers
Plausible vs.
implausible vs. rotated
P-value
Plausible vs.
implausiblec
P-value
Stimulus
preferencea
3.72e − 9
2.33e − 11
0.854
3.24e − 30
1.33e − 12
1.33e − 17
0.00392
8.37e − 8
4.73e − 41
0.190
4.82e − 10
0.000615
1.00e − 6
1.48e − 9
0.0699
0.820
0.419
0.0864
0.00309
0.0807
0.193
0.00131
0.115
0.0577
0.00836
Normal
Implausible
1.59e − 9
0.000787
0.147
0.552
0.00654
4.90e − 5
Implausible
Implausible
Normal
Normal
Implausible
Implausible
0.000106
0.458
0.000948
0.000860
Implausible
Normal
Implausible
Implausible
0.720
Rotated
0.421
Rotated
a
Stimulus with the largest evoked BOLD response.
b
If this interaction is not significant, then the region will have a preference for either words or numbers.
If this interaction is not significant, then the regions will have a preference for either normal or rotated speech.
c
Hemispheric Asymmetry Mapping
the synonym judgment on abstract items. We next sought to confirm this left hemisphere preference for semantic processing by
comparing the evoked responses from contralateral homologs
of the latter 3 regions. These contralateral regions (RdpOp,
RpSTS, and LCBI) were created by changing the sign of the X coordinate shown in Table 1, then drawing a 10-mm-diameter
sphere at that point. Comparing the regions pairwise in the first
column of Figure 5, we see that the evoked responses of the
contralateral homologs fail to distinguish abstract and sensory
blocks from the number blocks.
For the sentence comprehension task, it is quite possible that
the voxelwise interaction of sentence type by time shown in
Figure 4D is driven purely by the difference between intelligible
(i.e., plausible and implausible sentences) and unintelligible
speech. To investigate this possible confound, the analysis paralleled that performed on the synonym and numerical magnitude
judgment task with 2 post hoc repeated-measures ANOVAs with
subjects as the random factor and sentence type and time
(10 timepoints) as the fixed factors. For the first post hoc
ANOVA, sentence type included 3 levels ( plausible, implausible,
and rotated) with results shown in the fifth column of Table 2.
A region with a significant interaction of sentence type by time
over the 3 sentence types was tested with a second ANOVA for
a significant interaction by time over just the 2 intelligible sentence types ( plausible and implausible) with results shown in
the sixth column. In the seventh column, a region was assigned
a stimulus preference for rotated speech if the greater response
was evoked by spectrally rotated sentences. Likewise, if the response was greater for either plausible or implausible sentences,
then this indicated a preference for normal speech. If the region’s
response differentiated between plausible and implausible sentences, then this latter distinction was refined to a stimulus preference for either plausible or implausible speech dependent on
the larger response.
Many regions in both hemispheres differentiated between the
3 sentence types. None of the left hemisphere regions had a preference for rotated speech. In the right hemisphere, only the cerebellum (RCBI and RCBII) distinguished between plausible and
implausible sentences. Comparing evoked responses of the 3 regions (LdpOp, LpSTS, and RCBI) to their contralateral homologs
(second column, Figure 5), we see that only the RpSTS shows
some separation of rotated speech from normal speech (i.e.,
plausible and implausible) but not nearly to the extent observed
in the LpSTS.
In summary, many regions characterized by their leftward
asymmetry in the resting-state global signal were preferential
for semantic processing. The most important of these were the
left dorsal pars opercularis, the LpSTS, and RCBI, which discriminated between stimuli at all levels tested. Contralateral homologs
of these 3 regions failed to show a clear preference for semantic
processing. Among leftward asymmetric regions, a trend was
seen for the processing of words over numbers and normal
over rotated speech. This was reversed for rightward asymmetric
regions with a trend for numbers over words and rotated over
normal speech.
Discussion
By simply examining the difference in spontaneous BOLD fluctuations between hemispheres without removing the global signal, we have identified many regions with a leftward asymmetry
that are preferential for semantic processing and putative attention-related regions with a rightward asymmetry. The notion
that hemispheric asymmetries are a mathematical necessity
McAvoy et al.
| 1741
Figure 5. Subject averaged evoked BOLD responses for the 2 task-states. Regions
LdpOp, LpSTS, and RCBI are identified in Figures 2 and 4A with coordinates
provided in Table 1. Contralateral homologs RdpOp, RpSTS, and LCBI were
created by taking the peak coordinate provided in Table 1, changing the sign of
the X coordinate then drawing a 10-mm-diameter sphere at that point. Each
row is a separate region including 2 regions along the inferior frontal gyrus
(LdpOp and RdOp), 2 regions along the posterior superior temporal sulcus
(LpSTS and RpSTS), and 2 lateral inferior cerebellar regions (RCBI and LCBI). The
synonym and numerical magnitude judgment task is shown in the first
column, and the sentence comprehension task is shown in the second column.
The contralateral homologs fail to show the task differences present in the
regions identified from their leftward asymmetry in the resting-state global
signal.
1742
| Cerebral Cortex, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
that result from the left hemisphere confounding the right hemisphere (Frank 2000), and vice versa, is hard to reconcile with the
leftward asymmetry found in the right cerebellum (Petersen et al.
1989; Fiez et al. 1992; Wang et al. 2013). To exempt this area,
would be to ignore its well established involvement in language
processing in the structural, lesion, and task-based neuroimaging research (Stoodley and Schmahmann 2009; Murdoch 2010;
De Smet et al. 2013).
Although regions in the anterior temporal lobe (for reviews,
see Patterson et al. 2007; Wong and Gallate 2012) failed to show
a resting-state global signal hemispheric asymmetry in the smaller cohort of 20 subjects, a statistically significant leftward asymmetry was found in the larger cohort of 120 subjects (data not
shown). A possible explanation for this discrepancy is the
known BOLD signal loss from susceptibility artifacts in that
part of the brain (Ojemann et al. 1997; Devlin et al. 2000); thus a
larger number of subjects are needed to have the power to detect
significant effects.
Our analysis of hemispheric asymmetries has provided only a
static view of resting-state fluctuations. The brain not only lives
in the present but remembers the past, so it may more accurately
predict the future (Raichle 2010). Temporally, dynamic analyses
that look over multiple time points such as the cross-covariance
(e.g., McAvoy et al. 2012) are needed to unmask the full spatial extent of lateralization within the global signal.
Localization of Putative Language and Attention
Preferential Areas in the Resting-State
The 2 most common methods to identify putative language and
attention preferential regions from the brain’s spontaneous fluctuations are functional connectivity (Biswal et al. 1995) and principal (PCA) or independent components analysis (ICA)
(Beckmann et al. 2005). In functional connectivity, a seed region
is correlated with all other voxels in the brain. The effectiveness
of this technique is dependent on careful placement of the seed
(Cohen et al. 2008). This method has the properties that homotopic voxels are strongly correlated with the seed and ipsilateral
correlations are stronger than contralateral correlations (Gee
et al. 2011). Studies that have regressed the global signal have
struggled to identify language preferential (e.g., Zhao et al.
2011; Vogel et al. 2013) and attention preferential (e.g., Fox et al.
2006; Kucyi et al. 2012) networks. PCA and ICA parse the brain’s
spontaneous fluctuations into components that are either orthogonal or maximally separable, respectively, spatially, temporally or spatially and temporally. Putative language preferential
areas are not limited to a single component, nor is a single component limited to language preferential areas (c.f. Smith et al.
2012). Identification of the relevant components requires either
visual inspection or matching to a template (e.g., Smith et al.
2009). Moreover, language preferential regions are often represented symmetrically or with incomplete lateralization (Smith
et al. 2009; Tie et al. 2014), and attention preferential regions appear bilaterally among several components with other regions
(Damoiseaux et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2009).
Lesion, split–brain, and task fMRI studies have long established the left hemisphere dominance of language. Although
the right hemisphere is neither “word deaf” or “word blind”
(Sperry 1982), it has extremely limited syntactic, semantic, lexical, and phonological processing abilities despite being very capable at processing the contextual aspects of language
(Gazzaniga 1983; Baynes et al. 1992; Bottini et al. 1994; Soroker
et al. 2005). Furthermore, right hemisphere lesions produce deficits that are much more difficult to detect (Lindell 2006). Right
hemisphere regions involved in language processing as identified
by task-state fMRI are much less reliable and consistent across
studies (Price 2010; Vigneau et al. 2011). Perhaps most dramatic
are the brains of Broca’s patients Leborgne and Lelong with
their extensive left hemisphere damage and complete sparing
of the right hemisphere (Dronkers et al. 2007). By comparing
the intrinsic activity between hemispheres, we found that regions in left frontal and temporal cortex and the right cerebellum
identified from their leftward asymmetry in the resting-state global signal replicated much of the known anatomy of language
(Vigneau et al. 2006; Binder et al. 2009; Poeppel et al. 2012; Price
2012; Friederici and Gierhan 2013). By specifically identifying
the lateralized organization of the resting-state global signal to
semantic processing, we have sought to establish only an initial
proof of principle. It has been posited that the right hemisphere
has a dominant role in attention from observations of stroke patients with spatial neglect following right hemisphere lesions
(Heilman and Abell 1980; Weintraub and Mesulam 1987; Ringman et al. 2004). In the absence of neglect, subjects with right
hemisphere lesions have greater impairments in the contralesional hemispace during visual search tasks than subjects with
left hemisphere lesions (Mapstone et al. 2003; Rabuffetti et al.
2012). In split-brain patients, the right hemisphere’s performance of visuospatial tasks is superior to that of the left (for a review, see Gazzaniga 2000). We identified many areas long
associated with attention in the right hemisphere, which displayed a rightward asymmetry including the TPJ and regions in
frontal and parietal cortex (Pardo et al. 1991; Shulman et al.
2010; Cai et al. 2013; Kristensen et al. 2013).
Lateralization is a Fundamental Level of Organization in
the Human Brain
The global signal has been a source of great controversy in resting-state fMRI. This debate concerns whether it should be considered a nuisance or confounding variable and how best to account
for its contributions to the brain’s spontaneous fluctuations
(Macey et al. 2004; Murphy et al. 2008; Chang and Glover 2009;
Fox et al. 2009; Anderson et al. 2011; Chai et al. 2012; Chen et al.
2012; He and Liu 2012; Saad et al. 2012; Falahpour et al. 2013; Keller et al. 2013). The global signal is typically regressed from the
resting-state data before further analysis by a myriad of approaches including clustering (e.g., Salvador et al. 2005; Yeo
et al. 2011), graph theory (e.g., Sporns and Honey 2006; Power
et al. 2011), neural networks (e.g., Hacker et al. 2013), and modularity (e.g., Newman 2006; Ferrarini et al. 2009), among others. All
these techniques seek to establish the functional organization of
the brain. What insight that has been gained on the most venerable level of organization, lateralization, has focused on the residual lateralization present regionally after regression of the
global signal (Liu et al. 2009; Gee et al. 2011; Wang et al. 2013).
Lateralization as a global brain property has not been explored.
Implicit or subvocal speech is presumably a large part of most
people’s inner life (Cleland et al. 1963). Most of us are “talking to
ourselves” or at least thinking using semantic representations
during task performance and when resting (Binder et al. 1999).
If this signal is lateralized, it may be argued that this alone
could account for the observed global signal hemispheric asymmetries. However, the presence of this inner chatter fails to explain the lateralized organization of the right hemisphere,
which does not mirror the left and lacks a semantic preference.
Moreover, this inner chatter relies on semantic representations
that have been ascribed to the default mode network (Binder
et al. 2009; Binder and Desai 2011), yet the presence of strong
Hemispheric Asymmetry Mapping
connectivity within regions of the default mode network (Shulman et al. 1997; Raichle et al. 2001) after global signal regression
is one of the most notable and well-replicated findings in the
fMRI resting-state literature (e.g., Fox et al. 2005). Another possibility is that hemispheric asymmetry mapping (HAM) reflects
nothing more than lip and tongue motion; however, our right
hemisphere map lacks the mouth representations clearly seen
in the left hemisphere. We would expect the mouth region to appear bilaterally as this is a common finding in functional neuroimaging studies (e.g., Petersen et al. 1988; Brown et al. 2008;
Grabski et al. 2012). The right hemisphere regions in dorsal and
ventral precentral cortex identified by HAM displayed a rightward
asymmetry and were not preferential for language processing.
Our results demonstrate that at least some part of the global
signal contains neurally relevant information. Moreover, the lateralization embedded in the global signal suggests a fundamental hierarchy intrinsic to the brain, left hemisphere versus right
hemisphere (Gazzaniga et al. 1962), which has been largely overlooked in resting-state functional neuroimaging (Johnston et al.
2008). These results provide insight regarding the presence of
lateralization in the intrinsic brain activity of normal, healthy
subjects. Our approach expands the reach of functional imaging
studies of the human brain in health and disease.
Funding
This work was supported by the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology (MIR 12-023 and MRF 3618-92508 to M.M.); National Institutes of Health (NINDS NS080675 to M.E.R., NS061144 to S.E.P.),
the McDonnell Foundation (Collaborative Action Award to S.E.P.),
the Simons Foundation (Award 95177 to S.E.P.), and the Washington University Neuroimaging Informatics and Analysis Center led
by Dan Marcus (5P30NS048056). Funding for 120 subject validation
data set was provided by the National Institutes of Health (5R01
HD057076-S1 and R01HD057076 to Brad Schlaggar, K12 EY16336
to John Pruett, and K01DA027046 to Christina Lessov-Schlaggar),
Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation (Christina Lessov-Schlaggar),
McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience as Washington
University (Christina Lessov-Schlaggar), Alvin J. Siteman Cancer
Center (via NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA91842 to Christina Lessov-Schlaggar), and the Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities Research Center at Washington University (NIH/
NICHD P30 HD062171).
Notes
We thank James Keidel for providing the uttered sentences; Marion Harris for facilities support; Linda Hood for help with the
scanning; Avi Snyder, Evan Gordon, and Tim Laumann for helpful discussions, Binyam Nardos and Giovanni d′Avossa for help
with the experimental design, and Fran Miezin for technical support. The 120 subject validation data set was provided courtesy of
Brad Schlaggar, Christina Lessov-Schlaggar, Jessica Church, Joe
Dubis, Eric Feczko, Katie Ihnen, Maital Neta, and Alecia Vogel.
We thank the referees whose constructive criticisms greatly improved the quality of this manuscript. Conflict of Interest: None
declared.
References
Algina J. 1997. Generalization of improved general approximation
tests to split-plot designs with multiple between-subjects
McAvoy et al.
| 1743
factors and/or multiple within-subjects factors. Br J Math
Stat Psychology. 50:243–252.
Anderson JS, Druzgal TJ, Lopez-Larson M, Jeong E-K, Desai K, Yurgelun-Todd D. 2011. Network anticorrelations, global regression, and phase-shifted soft tissue correction. Hum Brain
Mapp. 32:919–934.
Baynes K, Tramo MJ, Gazzaniga MS. 1992. Reading with a limited
lexicon in the right hemisphere of a callosotomy patient.
Neuropsychologia. 30:187–200.
Beckmann CF, DeLuca M, Devlin JT, Smith SM. 2005. Investigations into resting-state connectivity using independent
component analysis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.
360:1001–1013.
Binder JR, Desai RH. 2011. The neurobiology of semantic memory.
Trends Cogn Sci. 15:527–536.
Binder JR, Desai RH, Graves WW, Conant LL. 2009. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120
functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex. 19:2767–2796.
Binder JR, Frost JA, Hammeke TA, Bellgowan PS, Rao SM, Cox RW.
1999. Conceptual processing during the conscious resting
state. A functional MRI study. J Cogn Neurosci. 11:80–95.
Biswal B, Yetkin FZ, Haughton VM, Hyde JS. 1995. Functional connectivity in the motor cortex of resting human brain using
echo-planar MRI. Magn Reson Med. 34:537–541.
Blesser B. 1972. Speech perception under conditions of spectral
transformation: I. Phonetic characteristics. J Speech Hear
Res. 15:5–41.
Bookheimer SY. 2002. New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annu Rev Neurosci.
25:151–188.
Bottini G, Corcoran R, Sterzi R, Paulesu E, Schenone P, Scarpa P,
Frackowiak RSJ, Frith CD. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language:
a positron emission tomography activation study. Brain.
117:1241–1253.
Broca P. 1861. Perte de la parole: ramollissement chronique et destruction partielle du lobe anterieur gauche du cerveau.
Bulletins de la Societe d’anthropologie, 1re serie. 2:235–238.
Brown S, Ngan E, Liotti M. 2008. A larynx area in the human motor
cortex. Cereb Cortex. 18:837–845.
Cai Q, Van der Haegen L, Brysbaert M. 2013. Complementary
hemispheric specialization for language production and
visuospatial attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 110:E322–E330.
Carbonell F, Bellec P, Shmuel A. 2011. Global and system-specific
resting-state fMRI fluctuations are uncorrelated: principal
component analysis reveals anti-correlated networks. Brain
Connect. 1:496–510.
Chai XJ, Castanon AN, Ongur D, Whitfield-Gabrieli S. 2012. Anticorrelations in resting state networks without global signal
regression. Neuroimage. 59:1420–1428.
Chang C, Glover GH. 2009. Effects of model-based physiological
noise correction on default mode network anti-correlations
and correlations. Neuroimage. 47:1448–1459.
Chen G, Chen G, Xie C, Ward BD, Li W, Antuono P, Li S-J. 2012. A
method to determine the necessity for global signal regression in resting-state fMRI studies. Magn Reson Med.
68:1828–1835.
Cleland DL, Davies WC, Davies TC. 1963. Research in reading.
Read Teach. 16:224–228.
Cohen AL, Fair DA, Dosenbach NUF, Miezin FM, Dierker D, Van
Essen DC, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. 2008. Defining functional
areas in individual human brains using resting functional
connectivity MRI. Neuroimage. 41:45–57.
1744
| Cerebral Cortex, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Cohen L, Dahaene S. 2004. Specialization within the ventral
stream: the case for the visual word from area. Neuroimage.
22:466–476.
Corbetta M, Shulman GL. 2011. Spatial neglect and attention
networks. Annu Rev Neurosci. 34:569–599.
Coughlan AK, Warrington EK. 1978. Word-comprehension and
word-retrieval in patients with localized cerebral lesions.
Brain. 101:163–185.
Damasio H, Tranel D, Grabowski T, Adolphs R, Damasio A. 2004.
Neural systems behind word and concept retrieval.
Cognition. 92:179–229.
Damoiseaux JS, Rombouts SA, Barkhof F, Scheltens P, Stam CJ,
Smith SM, Beckmann CF. 2006. Consistent resting-state
networks across healthy subjects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
103:13848–13853.
Daselaar SM, Huijbers W, Eklund K, Moscovitch M, Cabeza R.
2013. Resting-state functional connectivity of ventral parietal
regions associated with attention reorienting and episodic
recollection. Front Hum Neurosci. 7:1–9.
De Smet HJ, Paquier P, Verhoeven J, Marien P. 2013. The cerebellum: its role in language and related cognitive and affective
functions. Brain Lang. 127:334–342.
Devlin JT, Russell RP, Davis MH, Price CJ, Wilson J, Moss HE,
Matthews PM, Tyler LK. 2000. Susceptibility-induced loss
of signal: comparing PET and fMRI on a semantic task.
Neuroimage. 11:589–600.
Dronkers NF, Plaisant O, Iba-Zizen MT, Cabanis EA. 2007. Paul
Broca’s historic cases: high resolution MR imaging of the
brains of Leborgne and Lelong. Brain. 130:1432–1441.
Duerden EG, Arsalidou M, Lee MH, Taylor MJ. 2013. Lateralization
of affective processing in the insula. Neuroimage. 78:159–175.
Falahpour M, Refai H, Bodurka J. 2013. Subject specific BOLD fMRI
respiratory and cardiac response functions obtained from
global signal. Neuroimage. 72:252–264.
Ferrarini L, Veer IM, Baerends E, van Tol MJ, Renken RJ, van der
Wee NJ, Veltman DJ, Aleman A, Zitman FG, Penninx BWJH,
et al. 2009. Hierarchical functional modularity in the restingstate human brain. Hum Brain Mapp. 30:2220–2231.
Fiez JA, Petersen SE, Cheney MK, Raichle ME. 1992. Impaired nonmotor learning and error detection associated with cerebellar
damage. A single case study. Brain. 115(Pt 1):155–178.
Forman SD, Cohen JD, Fitzgerald M, Eddy WF, Mintun MA,
Noll DC. 1995. Improved assessment of significant activation
in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): use of a
cluster-size threshold. Magn Reson Med. 33:636–647.
Fox MD, Corbetta M, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Raichle ME. 2006.
Spontaneous neuronal activity distinguishes human dorsal
and ventral attention systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
103:10046–10051.
Fox MD, Snyder AZ, Vincent JL, Corbetta M, Van Essen DC,
Raichle ME. 2005. The human brain is intrinsically organized
into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 102:9673–9678.
Fox MD, Zhang D, Snyder AZ, Raichle ME. 2009. The global signal
and observed anticorrelated resting state brain networks.
J Neurophysiol. 101:3270–3283.
Frank KA. 2000. Impact of a confounding variable on a regression
coefficient. Soc Methods Res. 29:147–194.
Friederici AD, Gierhan SME. 2013. The language network. Curr
Opin Neurobiol. 23:250–254.
Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Poline JB, Grasby PJ, Williams SC,
Frackowiak RS, Turner R. 1995. Analysis of fMRI time-series
revisited. Neuroimage. 2:43–53.
Friston KJ, Williams S, Howard R, Frackowiak RS, Turner R. 1996.
Movement-related effects in fMRI time-series. Magn Reson
Med. 35:346–355.
Gazzaniga MS. 1983. Right hemisphere language following brain
bisection: a 20-year perspective. Am Psychol. 38:525–537.
Gazzaniga MS. 2000. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable
the human condition? Brain. 123(Pt 7):1293–1326.
Gazzaniga MS, Bogen JE, Sperry RW. 1962. Some functional effects
of sectioning the cerebral commissures in man. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 48:1765–1769.
Gee DG, Biswal BB, Kelly C, Stark DE, Marguiles DS, Shehzad Z,
Uddin LQ, Klein DF, Banich MT, Castellanos FX, et al. 2011. Low
frequency fluctuations reveal integrated and segregated processing among the cerebral hemispheres. Neuroimage. 54:517–527.
Grabski K, Lamalle L, Vilain C, Schwartz J-L, Vallee N, Tropres I,
Baciu M, Le Bas J-F, Sato M. 2012. Functional MRI assessment
of orofacial articulators: neural correlates of lip, jaw, larynx,
and tongue movements. Hum Brain Mapp. 33:2306–2321.
Greicius MD, Krasnow B, Reiss AL, Menon V. 2003. Functional connectivity in the resting brain: a network analysis of the default
mode hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100:253–258.
Hacker CD, Laumann TO, Szrama NP, Baldassarre A, Snyder AZ,
Leuthardt EC, Corbetta M. 2013. Resting state network estimation in individual subjects. NeuroImage. 82:616–633.
Hampson M, Petersen BS, Skudlarski P, Gatenby JC, Gore JC. 2002.
Detection of functional connectivity using temporal correlations in MR images. Hum Brain Mapp. 15:247–262.
He H, Liu TT. 2012. A geometric view of global signal confounds in
resting-state functional MRI. Neuroimage. 59:2239–2348.
Heilman KM, Abell TVD. 1980. Right hemisphere dominance for
attention. Neurology. 30:327–330.
Hutchison RM, Gallivan JP, Culham JC, Gati JS, Menon RS,
Everling S. 2012. Functional connectivity of the frontal eye
fields in humans and macaque monkeys investigated with
resting-state fMRI. J Neurophysiol. 107:2463–2474.
Jefferies E, Patterson K, Jones RW, Ralph MAL. 2009. Comprehension of concrete and abstract words in semantic dementia.
Neuropsychology. 23:492–499.
Johnston JM, Vaishnavi SN, Smyth MD, Zhang D, He BJ,
Zempel JM, Shimony JS, Snyder AZ, Raichle ME. 2008. Loss of
resting interhemispheric functional connectivity after complete section of the corpus callosum. J Neurosci. 28:6453–6458.
Keller CJ, Bickel S, Honey CJ, Groppe DM, Entz L, Craddock RC,
Lado FA, Kelly C, Milham M, Mehta AD. 2013. Neurophysiological investigation of spontaneous correlated and anticorrelated fluctuations of the BOLD signal. J Neurosci. 33:6333–6342.
Keller SS, Crow T, Foundas A, Amunts K, Roberts N. 2009. Broca’s
area: nomenclature, anatomy, typology and asymmetry. Brain
Lang. 109:29–48.
Keppel G. 1991. Design and Analysis, A Researcher’s Handbook.
Third Edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Kristensen LB, Wang L, Petersson KM, Hagoort P. 2013. The interface between language and attention: prosodic focus marking
recruits a general attention network in spoken language comprehension. Cereb Cortex. 23:1836–1848.
Kucyi A, Hodaie M, Davis KD. 2012. Lateralization in intrinsic functional connectivity of the temporoparietal junction with salience- and attention-related brain networks. J Neurophysiol.
108:3382–3392.
Lambon Ralph MA, Probic G, Jefferies E. 2009. Conceptual knowledge is underpinned by the temporal pole bilaterally: convergent evidence from rTMS. Cereb Cortex. 19:832–838.
Hemispheric Asymmetry Mapping
LeDoux JE, Wilson DH, Gazzaniga MS. 1977. Manipulo-spatial aspects of cerebral lateralization: clues to the origin of lateralization. Neuropsychologia. 15:743–750.
Lee MH, Hacker CD, Snyder AZ, Corbetta M, Zhang D,
Leuthardt EC, Shimony JS. 2012. Clustering of resting state
networks. PLoS One. 7:e40370.
Lindell AK. 2006. In your right mind: right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychol
Rev. 16:131–148.
Liu H, Stufflebeam SM, Sepulcre J, Hedden T, Buckner RL. 2009.
Evidence from intrinsic activity that asymmetry of the
human brain is controlled by multiple factors. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 106:20499–20503.
Lowe MJ, Mock BJ, Sorenson JA. 1998. Functional connectivity in
single and multislice echoplanar imaging using resting-state
fluctuations. Neuroimage. 7:119–132.
Macey PM, Macey KE, Kumar R, Harper RM. 2004. A method for removal of global effects from fMRI time series. Neuroimage.
22:360–366.
Mapstone M, Weintraub S, Nowinski C, Kaptanoglu G,
Gitelman DR, Mesulam MM. 2003. Cerebral hemispheric specialization for spatial attention: spatial distribution of
search-related eye fixations in the absence of neglect.
Neuropsychologia. 41:1396–1409.
Markett S, Reuter M, Montag C, Voigt G, Lachmann B, Rudorf S,
Elger CE, Weber B. 2014. Assessing the function of the fronto-parietal attention network: insights from resting-state
fMRI and the attentional network test. Hum Brain Mapp.
35:1700–1709.
McAvoy M, Larson-Prior L, Ludwikow M, Zhang D, Snyder AZ,
Gusnard DA, Raichle ME, d’Avossa G. 2012. Dissociated
mean and functional connectivity BOLD signals in visual cortex during eyes closed and fixation. J Neurophysiol.
108:2363–2372.
McAvoy M, Larson-Prior L, Nolan TS, Vaishnavi SN, Raichle ME,
d’Avossa G. 2008. Resting states affect spontaneous BOLD oscillations in sensory and paralimbic cortex. J Neurophysiol.
100:922–931.
McAvoy MP, Ollinger JM, Buckner RL. 2001. Cluster size thresholds
for assessment of significant activation in fMRI. Neuroimage.
13:S198.
Muller AM, Meyer M. 2014. Language in the brain at rest: new insights from resting state data and graph theoretical analysis.
Front Hum Neurosci. 8:228.
Murdoch BE. 2010. The cerebellum and language: historical perspective and review. Cortex. 46:858–868.
Murphy K, Birn RM, Handwerker DA, Jones TB, Bandettini PA.
2008. The impact of global signal regression on resting state
correlations: are anti-correlated networks introduced?
Neuroimage. 29:740–750.
Newman MEJ. 2006. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:8577–8582.
Noppeney U, Price CJ. 2004. Retrieval of abstract semantics.
Neuroimage. 22:164–170.
Ojemann JG, Akbudak E, Snyder AZ, McKinstry RC, Raichle ME,
Conturo TE. 1997. Anatomic localization and quantitative
analysis of gradient refocused echo-planar fMRI susceptibility
artifacts. Neuroimage. 6:156–167.
Pardo JV, Fox PT, Raichle ME. 1991. Localization of a human system for sustained attention by positron emission tomography. Nature. 349:61–64.
Patterson K, Nestor PJ, Rogers TT. 2007. Where do you know what
you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the
human brain. Nat Rev Neurol. 8:976–987.
McAvoy et al.
| 1745
Petersen SE, Fox PT, Posner MI, Mintun M, Raichle ME. 1988. Positron emission tomographic studies of the cortical anatomy of
single-word processing. Nature. 331:585–589.
Petersen SE, Fox PT, Posner MI, Mintun M, Raichle ME. 1989. Positron emission tomographic studies of the processing of single
words. J Cognitive Neurosci. 1:153–170.
Petersen SE, Fox PT, Snyder AZ, Raichle ME. 1990. Activation of extrastriate and frontal cortical areas by visual words and wordlike stimuli. Science. 249:1041–1044.
Poeppel D, Emmorey K, Hickok G, Pylkkanen L. 2012. Towards a
new neurobiology of language. J Neurosci. 32:14125–14131.
Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE. 2012.
Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage.
59:2142–2154.
Power JD, Cohen AL, Nelson SM, Wig GS, Barnes KA, Church JA,
Vogel AC, Laumann TO, Miezin FM, Schlaggar BL, et al. 2011.
Functional network organization of the human brain.
Neuron. 72:665–678.
Power JD, Mitra A, Laumann TO, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL,
Petersen SE. 2014. Methods to detect, characterize, and remove motion artifact in resting state fMRI. Neuroimage.
84:320–341.
Power JD, Schlaggar BL, Lessov-Schlaggar CN, Petersen SE. 2013.
Evidence for hubs in human functional brain networks.
Neuron. 79:798–813.
Price CJ. 2010. The anatomy of language: a review of 100 fMRI
studies published in 2009. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1191:62–88.
Price CJ. 2012. A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET
and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. Neuroimage. 62:816–847.
Rabuffetti M, Farina E, Alberoni M, Pellegatta D, Ildebrando A,
Affanni P, Forni M, Ferrarin M. 2012. Spatio-temporal features
of visual exploration in unilaterally brain-damaged subjects
with or without neglect: results from a touchscreen test.
PLoS ONE. 7:e31511.
Raichle ME. 2010. Two views of brain function. Trends Cogn Sci.
14:180–190.
Raichle ME, MacLeod AM, Snyder AZ, Powers WJ, Gusnard DA,
Shulman GL. 2001. A default mode of brain function. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:676–682.
Ringman JM, Saver JL, Woolson RF, Clarke WR, Adams HP. 2004.
Frequency, risk factors, anatomy, and course of unilateral
neglect in an acute stroke cohort. Neurology. 63:468–474.
Rowland DJ, Garbow JR, Laforest R, Snyder AZ. 2005. Registration
of [18F]FDG microPET and small-animal MRI. Nucl Med Biol.
32:567–572.
Saad ZS, Gotts SJ, Murphy K, Chen G, Jo HJ, Martin A, Cox RW.
2012. Trouble at rest: how correlation patterns and group differences become distorted after global signal regression. Brain
Connect. 2:25–32.
Salvador R, Suckling J, Coleman MR, Pickard JD, Menon D,
Bullmore E. 2005. Neurophysiological architecture of functional magnetic resonance images of human brain. Cereb
Cortex. 15:1332–1342.
Satterthwaite TD, Elliott MA, Gerraty RT, Ruparel K, Loughead J,
Calkins ME, Eickhoff SB, Hakonarson H, Gur RC, Gur RE,
et al. 2013. An improved framework for confound regression
and filtering for control of motion artifact in the preprocessing
of resting-state functional connectivity data. Neuroimage.
64:240–256.
Scholvinck ML, Maier A, Ye FQ, Duyn JH, Leopold DA. 2010. Neural
basis of global resting-state fMRI activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 107:10238–10243.
1746
| Cerebral Cortex, 2016, Vol. 26, No. 4
Scott SK, Blank CC, Rosen S, Wise RJS. 2000. Identification of a
pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe.
Brain. 123:2400–2406.
Shmueli K, van Gelderen P, de Zwart JA, Horovitz SG, Fukunaga M,
Jansma JM, Duyn JH. 2007. Low-frequency fluctuations in the
cardiac rate as a source of variance in the resting-state fMRI
BOLD signal. Neuroimage. 38:306–320.
Shulman GL, Fiez JA, Corbetta M, Buckner RL, Miezin FM,
Raichle ME, Petersen SE. 1997. Common blood flow changes
across visual tasks: II. Decreases in cerebral cortex. J Cogn
Neurosci. 9:648–663.
Shulman GL, Pope DL, Astafiev SV, McAvoy MP, Snyder AZ,
Corbetta M. 2010. Right hemisphere dominance during spatial
selective attention and target detection occurs outside the
dorsal frontoparietal network. J Neurosci. 30:3640–3651.
Smith SM, Fox PT, Miller KL, Glahn DC, Fox PM, Mackay CE,
Filippini N, Watkins KE, Toro R, Laird AR, et al. 2009. Correspondence of the brain’s functional architecture during activation and rest. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 106:13040–13045.
Smith SM, Miller KL, Moeller S, Xu J, Auerbach EJ, Woolrich MW,
Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Andersson J, Glasser MF, et al.
2012. Temporally-independent functional modes of spontaneous brain activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 109:3131–3136.
Soroker N, Kasher A, Giora R, Batori G, Corn C, Gil N, Zaidel E. 2005.
Processing of basic speech acts following localized brain damage: a new ligt on the neuroanatomy of language. Brain Cogn.
57:214–217.
Sperry R. 1982. Some effects of disconnecting the cerebral hemispheres. Science. 217:1223–1226.
Sporns O, Honey CJ. 2006. Small worlds inside big brains. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:19219–19220.
Stoodley CJ, Schmahmann JD. 2009. Functional topography in the
human cerebellum: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies.
Neuroimage. 44:489–501.
Talairach J, Tournoux P. 1988. Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the
Human Brain. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
Tie Y, Rigolo L, Norton IH, Huang RY, Wu W, Orringer O,
Mukundan S Jr, Golby AJ. 2014. Defining language networks
from resting-state fMRI for surgical planning—a feasibility
study. Hum Brain Mapp. 35:1018–1030.
Tomasi D, Volkow ND. 2012. Resting functional connectivity of
language networks: characterization and reproducibility.
Mol Psychiatr. 17:841–854.
Vigneau M, Beaucousin V, Herve PY, Duffau H, Crivello F,
Houde O, Mazoyer B, Tzourio-Mazoyer N. 2006. Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: phonology, semantics,
and sentence processing. Neuroimage. 30:1414–1432.
Vigneau M, Beaucousin V, Herve P-Y, Jobard G, Petit L, Crivello F,
Mellet E, Zago L, Mazoyer B, Tzourio-Mazoyer N. 2011. What
is the right-hemisphere contribution to phonological,
lexico-semantic, and sentence processing? Insights from a
meta-analysis. Neuroimage. 54:577–593.
Vogel AC, Church JA, Power JD, Miezin FM, Petersen SE, Schlaggar BL.
2013. Functional network architecture of reading-related regions
across development. Brain Lang. 125:231–243.
Vossel S, Geng JJ, Fink GR. 2014. Dorsal and ventral attention systems:
distinct neural circuits but collaborative roles. Neuroscientist.
20:150–159.
Wang D, Buckner RL, Liiu H. 2013. Cerebellar asymmetry and its
relation to cerebral asymmetry estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol. 109:46–57.
Warrington EK, McKenna P, Orpwood L. 1998. Single word comprehension: a concrete and abstract word synonym test.
Neuropsychol Rehabil. 8:143–154.
Weintraub S, Mesulam MM. 1987. Right cerebral dominance in
spatial attention. Further evidence based on ipsilateral neglect. Arch Neurol. 44:621–625.
Weissenbacher A, Kasess C, Gerstl F, Lazenberger R, Moser E,
Windischberger C. 2009. Correlations and anticorrelations in
resting-state functional connectivity MRI: a quantitative comparison of preprocessing strategies. Neuroimage. 47:1408–1416.
Wernicke C. 1874. Der Aphasische Symptomencomplex. Breslau:
Cohn and Weigert.
Wise RG, Ide K, Poulin MJ, Tracey I. 2004. Resting fluctuations in
arterial carbon dioxide induce significant low frequency variations in BOLD signal. Neuroimage. 21:1652–1664.
Wise RJS, Scott SK, Blank SC, Mummery CJ, Murphy K,
Warburton EA. 2001. Separate neural subsystems within ‘Wernicke’s area’. Brain. 124:83–95.
Wong C, Gallate J. 2012. The function of the anterior temporal lobe:
a review of the empirical evidence. Brain Res. 1449:94–116.
Yan CG, Cheung B, Kelly C, Colcombe S, Craddock RC, Di
Martino A, Li Q, Zuo XN, Castellanos FX, Milham MP. 2013. A
comprehensive assessment of regional variation in the impact of head micromovements of functional connectomics.
Neuroimage. 76:183–201.
Yeo BT, Krienen FM, Sepulcre J, Sabuncu MR, Lashkari D,
Hollinshead M, Roffman JL, Smoller JW, Zollei L, Polimeni JR,
et al. 2011. The organization of the human cerebral cortex estimated by intrinsic functional connectivity. J Neurophysiol.
106:1125–1165.
Zeng L-L, Wang D, Fox MD, Sabuncu M, Hu D, Ge M, Buckner RL,
Liu H. 2014. Neurobiological basis of head motion in brain imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 111:6058–6062.
Zhao J, Liu J, Li J, Liang J, Feng L, Ai L, Lee K, Tian J. 2011. Intrinsically organized network for word processing during the resting
state. Neurosci Lett. 487:27–31.
Zhu L, Fan Y, Zou Q, Wang J, Gao J-H, Niu Z. 2014. Temporal reliability and lateralization of the resting-state language network. PLOS One. 9:e85880.